Confederation system

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As allies System (formerly Italic Confederation ) is in the research organization of the Italian allies by the Roman Republic called. There are currently two explanations of the Roman alliance system. The older model by Julius Beloch can still be found in most school books today. Theodora Hantos' model is an alternative to this.

The classic model

The classic model (1880) according to Julius Beloch divides the Roman allies system into the following four categories: Ager Romanus, Municipien , Latin colonies and allies.

Ager Romanus
the heartland surrounding Rome .
Municipalities
larger, contiguous areas, which Rome subjected to its control, but still left them with limited autonomy.
Latin colonies
After the conquest, these were repopulated with Romans and Latins. A political copy of the mother city of Rome was created on the conquered land.
Allies
autonomous states bound to Rome by treaties.

Criticism of the model

The criticism of this model is that it was distorted by its time of origin (1880), the 19th century of German claims to great power. It tries to paint the image of Roman Italy as a tight state or at least a federation of states, instead of the image prevailing today of a general rule that was neither a federal state, nor a federation of states, nor a federation. Beloch subordinates Rome to a policy of conscious Romanization, which, according to Hantos, cannot be proven. It is criticized that Beloch projected the values ​​of his time (centralized, ethnically homogeneous nation-state) onto history and that the Romans assumed that they consciously pursued these values .

Alternative model according to Hantos

Alternatively, Theodora Hantos' model depicts the Romanization of Italy as a development undesirable to Rome, which was a by-product of Roman rule, rather than its drive. She argues that Rome actually wanted to prevent the Romanization of Italy in order not to lose political power to Italian non-Romans. Nevertheless, especially after the alliance war, they gained Roman citizenship and thus also a political say.

Theodora Hantos' system comprises five categories, which in turn are divided into subgroups:

Territorial integrative rule
The inhabitants of the conquered area were destroyed and Romans settled. The country became part of the Roman state.
Integrative direct rule
The conquered land was integrated into the Roman state, the old state ceased to exist, but the conquered associations of persons were not destroyed, but integrated. They received citizenship.
Partly integrative direct rule
A conquered state received a status of semi-autonomy, in which it regarded itself as a state, as a result of its autonomy in the administration of sacred, judiciary and justice. However, it was only recognized as a state by Rome to a limited extent, as it expected various services from its citizens, especially military service.
Territorial integrative indirect domination
Outwardly, this form resembles direct territorial integration, since in both cases Roman settlers settled on newly conquered land. However, in the old form, the settlers were enrolled in the old tribes and retained their citizenship, with which they were firmly bound to Rome. Here, however, new tribes were founded and a new state. This followed the example of the Latins and was thus completely independent through its own constitution, bureaucracy and even foreign policy. Like the Latin states, his only duty was to provide Rome with troops. Its inhabitants had been downgraded by Romans to Latins, which underlines their statehood, as they could not vote in Rome, but only in their state. The bond with Rome was due to the cultural proximity and the application of an exact copy of the Roman administration and constitution.
Semi-integrative indirect domination
All states that have entered into a defensive alliance with Rome fall under this form. These alliances can be divided into coordinated and subordinated, or into alliances, alliances and protectorates. The more powerful Rome became, the more it tended to conclude the subordinate form of alliance, which obliged only the Italian partner to provide services to Rome, not the other way around. Overall, this form of alliance outweighed the coordinated one.

Criticism of the model

The criticism of this model is that it suggests a systematization that is improbable in this form. So Hantos accepts numerous special and sub-types of socii , whereby the individual "groups" sometimes only include a single example. Many researchers therefore assume that the terms of the alliance were fundamentally determined individually, depending on the circumstances under which the Graubünden joined or had to join Rome. The systematic division into different types of allies, on the other hand, is a learned fiction that seeks to organize the disordered.

literature

  • Karl Julius Beloch : The Italische Bund under Rome's hegemony. Constitutional and statistical research . Leipzig 1880. Reprinted by Bretschneider, Rome 1964.
  • Filippo Carlà-Uhink: The birth of Italy. The institutionalization of Italy as a region, 3rd to 1st century BCE. De Gruyter, Berlin 2017.
  • Theodora Hantos: The Roman alliance system in Italy . Beck, Munich 1983 ( Vestigia , Vol. 34) ISBN 3-406-08064-2